Perez v. Adams et al

Filing 44

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 38 and 39 Motion to Serve Defendants'; ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 42 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order; signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 02/16/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARCO PEREZ,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO SERVE DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:11-cv-01820-BAM-PC

v.
(ECF NOs. 38, 39)

14
15

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST TO MODIFY SCHEDULING
ORDER (ECF NO. 42)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Marco Pereiz is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19

On May 18, 2015, an order was entered, granting Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend

20 the complaint, for limited purposes. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a new first amended
21 complaint as follows: to substitute Defendants Latraille and Taber for Defendants Carter and
22 Schneider; to reinstate Defendant Hubach, only for his personal participation in the pepper-spray
23 assault against Plaintiff; and to add medical claims against Defendants Pineda, John Doe RN,
24 Nurse Johnson, Nurse Lopez, and Nurse Moss. The Court specifically noted that Plaintiff’s first
25 amended complaint may only include allegations against Defendants C/O Byrum, C/O Pimentel,
26 Latrialle, Taber, Hubach, Pineda, John Doe RN, Nurse Johnson, Nurse Lopez, and Nurse Moss.
27 Plaintiff was specifically cautioned that he shall not be granted leave to reinstate his claims
28 concerning his unclothed body search, supervisory liability or cell conditions.

1

1

On June 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint that complied with the Mary

2 18, 2015, order. On December 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to serve the first
3 amended complaint along with USM 285 forms. Plaintiff has completed and returned to the
4 Court the USM 285 forms for service. On January 22, 2016, Defendants Byrum and Pimentel
5 filed a motion to modify the scheduling order. Defendants seek to vacate the current scheduling
6 order as the new defendants have yet been served. Good cause appearing, the current scheduling
7 order should be vacated. A new scheduling order will be entered upon the filing of an answer by
8 the new defendants.
9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for service is granted. The Clerk’s Office is directed to send to

11

the U.S. Marshal the forms for service of process submitted by Plaintiff on December

12

8, 2015.

13

2. The scheduling order in this action is vacated. A new scheduling order will be
entered upon the filing of an answer by the new defendants.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

February 16, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2